This is the second in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this second article is on how the exclusion of special masters from bankruptcy cases: (i) is without a sound reason, and (ii) is based on a history of haste and uncertainty.[Fn. 1]

Bankruptcy Rule 9031—The Prohibition

The Scottish Court of Session has, for the first time, considered what is required to establish a ‘liability’ for the purposes of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”). In this matter, the Court found that a ‘decree in default’, issued due to the insolvent Insured’s failed to appear at a procedural hearing, was sufficient to establish ‘liability’.

This is the first in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this first article is on how special masters are already utilized, effectively, by federal district courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (titled, “Masters”).[Fn. 1]

Special Masters in Federal Courts

–A Brief History

The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its first judgment relating to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006: Re AGPS Bondco Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 24. Restructuring plans were a 2020 innovation in UK insolvency law, as described in our earlier alert.

There are two mechanisms through which a creditor may net amounts owed to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor -- setoff and recoupment. These mechanisms are distinct and are treated very differently in a bankruptcy setting.

Key Issues

Setoff. Setoff is a right based in state law that allows parties to apply their mutual debts against each other. These rights are preserved in bankruptcy through Section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which does not create any federal right of setoff, but leaves such state law rights undisturbed.

The recent judgment of HHJ Richard Williams, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Loveridge v Povey & Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) deals with what he described as a bitter dispute over the Loveridge family business. The business concerned was the operation of caravan parks in Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Shropshire, in part through five companies, and in part through three partnerships at will. The companies made use of interest-free inter-company loans repayable on demand

维好协议还好吗? 前 言 维好协议（KEEPWELL DEED）通常由在中国 1 注册成立的 母 公司签 署，为其 境 外 子 公司的融 资 进 行增信（CREDIT ENHANCEMENT）（见图表），最初常见于债券市场，近年 来也经常出现在贷款交易中。 提供维好承诺的母公司承诺维持其境外债务人子公司的财 务健康，以增强债权人对债务人的信心。 维 好协议 通常包含的承诺有：要求 维 好提 供方维持境外 维好协议与保证的主要区别 维好协议和保证有以下的重要分别 : 1. 仅就本文而言，“中国”或“中国内地”指中华人民共和国，不包括香港及澳门特别行政区和台湾。“境内”及“境外”有相应的意思。 债务人的净资产为正值、为其提供偿还债务的流动资金、 以 及保 持其对该等境 外债务人的管控 权和所有权等。其 中一些承诺或受制于取得相关中国政府部门的审批将资 金 汇出境 外的前 提 条 件，并且 维 好提 供 方必须尽最 大努 力获 得该 等审 批。除 签 署维 好协议 外，维 好 提 供 方通常 还 会 签 署股 权 购买承 诺（EQUITY INTEREST PURCHASE UNDERTAKINGS），即维好提供方承诺购买其境外债务人 子公司持有的若干股权，以便将资金（即购买对价）汇出境外。

In one of the most highly anticipated judgments in the European restructuring market in recent years, on 23 January 2024, the English Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision sanctioning the Adler restructuring plan.¹

Dispute Resolution analysis: In November 2023, Mr Justice Miles sanctioned restructuring plans under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 in respect of two companies within the Atento group. The plans had significant creditor support, did not involve any cross-claim cram down and achieved a demonstrably better outcome for creditors than the alternative, a group-wide liquidation.

Re Atento UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 3076 (Ch))

What are the practical implications of this case?

Fraudulent trading is both a civil and criminal offence. The recent judgment of the High Court in Bouchier v Booth provided a helpful reminder of the principles that a Court will apply when considering whether directors have acted in a manner that constitutes fraudulent trading and the high threshold for proving fraudulent conduct.